Are men “in charge of women”?
This verse begins with the declaration that “Men are qawwamun in relation to women.” The word qawwamun (singular, qawwam) derives from the Arabic term for standing. It signifies one who “stands over” or “stands up for,” thus potentially encompassing both authority and responsibility. These dual elements were recognized by traditional commentators on this verse who attributed men’s role as qawwamun to both divine favor of men in general over women in general (“according to what God has favored some over others”) and to husband’s financial responsibility for paying dower and maintenance to their wives (“according to what they spend from their wealth.”) Some commentators devoted more attention to male “perfection” and female “deficiency” than to men’s financial obligations, while others acknowledged male superiority as a given, but stressed a husband’s duty to support his wife.
Progressive interpretations contest the notion that men are inherently superior to women. Some argue that while the verse can indeed be taken to refer to favoring men over women, this favor is only in the limited realm of the greater inheritances men receive (possibly alluded to in the immediately preceding verses, Q. 4:32-3). These interpreters see this link referred to in the next clause of 4:34 which refers to men’s financial responsibilities (“and according to what they spend from their wealth”).
Others interpreters stress that the Qur’an only states that “God has favored some over others,” not that men are favored over women; there is no grammatical reason for taking men as the “some” and women as the “others.” These authors argue that the passage refers to some men being privileged over other men, thus differing in the amount of wealth they use to maintain the women for whom they are qawwamun.
The most important element in these, and other, re-readings, though, is the focus on male support of women. If men are qawwamun in part “because of what” (one possible translation of bi ma along with “according to what”) they spend on women, then this role is dependent on male financial responsibility. If men no longer support women, then they lose any resultant authority. Thus, in a family where both husband and wife contribute to the household expenses, the husband would not be the wife’s qawwam.
RETURN TO MAIN ESSAY
What are the defining characteristics of “righteous women” (al-salihat)?
This verse defines “righteous women” in two ways: as hafizat li’l-ghayb, literally those women who guard or protect what is absent or unseen, and qanitat, a term that can mean obedient, subservient, or deferential.
There is no commentarial consensus on how to interpret the phrase “hafizat li’l-ghayb,” particularly in conjunction with bi ma hafiza Allah, according to, or with, or because of what God has guarded or protected. The most common traditional position holds that it is a woman who protects her chastity and her husband’s possessions in his absence. This view is recorded in a widely cited hadith stating that “The best of women is the one who if you look at her, she pleases you, and if you command her, she obeys you, and in your absence she guards herself and your property.”
Progressive and feminist interpreters, however, have tended to interpret “those who guard what is unseen” as those who fulfill their religious obligations and protect their faith, as God has guarded it.
There is a similar discrepancy in traditional and progressive interpretations of qanitat. Qanitat is the feminine plural of qanit, meaning one who is obedient, subservient, or deferential, one who demonstrates qunut, from the same Arabic root (q-n-t). The traditional commentators understand the qanitat in Q. 4:34 as, quite simply, obedient women, in particular, women who are obedient to their husbands. Twelfth-century commentator Ibn 'Atiya defines the term in typical fashion: "The meaning of qanitat is obedient (muti'at), and qunut is obedience (ta'a), meaning to their husbands or to God through [obeying] their husbands and in other matters.”1
However, some modern commentators have pointed out that qanitat is used elsewhere in the Qur’an only for obedience to God. Indeed, one generally conservative translator renders it as “devoutly obedient,” since the Qur’an applies the term to men and women alike. For example, Q. 33:35 refers to “devoutly obedient men (qanitin) and devoutly obedient women (qanitat).” The term is also used for luminary figures such as Mary (Q. 66:12) and Abraham (Q. 16:120). (For further uses of these terms, see Q. 2:116, 238; 3:17, 43; 30:26; 33:31; 39:9; 66:5.) There is thus no reason, these interpreters argue, for considering the use of the term in 4:34 to refer to anything other than women’s obedience and devotion to God.
What is nushuz and what are its consequences?
The root of the word nushuz (n-sh-z) refers to something that rises. Traditional Qur’an commentators generally understand women’s nushuz as disobedience or rebelliousness (isyan) toward their husbands. Two behaviors repeatedly mentioned as forms of nushuz are leaving the marital home without permission and refusing the husband’s sexual overtures. More rarely, disrespectfulness, “lewdness,” or failure to perform religious obligations are mentioned as forms of female nushuz. A woman who commits nushuz is referred to as nashiz or nashiza. Men can also commit nushuz, but the term is understood differently in that case. (Read more about Men’s nushuz)
Contemporary interpreters differ somewhat in their interpretation of nushuz, whether on the wife’s part or the husband’s. Generally, they view nushuz as a type of marital disharmony, arising on the part of either husband or wife, or lewd conduct, falling short of adultery, on the part of either spouse.
When a woman commits nushuz, traditional authorities agree on several measures that the husband may use. In addition to those sanctioned by the Qur’an, discussed below, jurists generally agree that a man may suspend his wife’s support (nafaqa) if she refuses him and/or leaves home, since she has made herself unavailable to him.
RETURN TO MAIN ESSAY
May a man strike his wife?
The three measures given in Q. 4:34 are “admonish them, and abandon them in bed, and strike them.” The verb daraba, “to strike,” is commonly translated in this context as “hit,” “beat,” “scourge,” etc. The verb appears numerous times in the Qur’an with other meanings, leading some modern authors to question why it must be understood as striking in 4:34. But traditional interpreters agree that the verse gives permission for a husband to strike his wife for nushuz, if admonition and abandonment in bed have had no effect.
In admonishing the wife, twelfth-century jurist Ibn ‘Arabi states that she is to be reminded of her “duties of obedience to her husband” and “of the degree that he has over her.”2 His contemporary Ibn ‘Atiya states that “The meaning of 'admonish them' is: remind them of the command of God, and call them to their obligations from the book of God and the sunna (tradition) of God’s Prophet.” The second measure, abandonment (hijr) of the marital bed, is given a variety of interpretations. It may involve turning one’s back to one’s wife while in the same bed; not speaking to her, though intercourse may occur; avoiding intercourse; or speaking and having intercourse, but “with harsh and forceful words.”3 The most common interpretation is generally that the wife is to be left to sleep alone for a period of time. If either of these measures works, and causes the wife to give up her nushuz and return to obedience, then the husband may not, these authorities affirm, “pursue a strategy against her.”
Striking is only permissible, according to traditional authorities, in cases where the husband has already admonished the wife and abandoned her in bed without any change in the wife’s behavior. Under these circumstances, he may strike her. There are limitations placed on how he may do so, including that he must hit her in a way that is “non-violent” (“ghayr mubarrih”) and must not break bones, leave bruises, or cause blood to flow. Additionally, based on the Prophet Muhammad’s order in another context that one should never hit another Muslim’s face, he must not strike her face. A minority place additional limits, such as that the striking must be done with a miswak (a twig used for a toothbrush) a folded cloth, or a blade of grass.
A number of contemporary authors writing from moderate positions, such as Jamal Badawi, have stressed these limitations, arguing that the striking referred to in the Qur’an is a “more of a symbolic gesture than a punitive one.” These commentators frequently note that of the Muslim men who strike their wives, few do so after admonition and a period of sleeping apart, nor do they follow the limits that exegetes have imposed, such as not striking the wife’s face. Thus, such authors argue, one cannot blame the existence of “true violence” among Muslims on Q. 4:34.
Yet for others, this explanation is insufficient. Rendering the husband’s right to strike his wife merely symbolic leaves open the question of why it is permitted at all. If verbal appeals and a cooling off period of sexual separation both fail, it seems unreasonable to expect that “a gentle tap” “may save the marriage,” as Badawi also states. Thus, some have argued that we must understand the verse differently. It has been proposed that daraba in this context does not mean strike, but rather “separate” or even “have sex with” (one of the term’s metaphorical meanings). Others have suggested that rather than permission for husbands to strike their wives, the verse refers to punishment that can be imposed by the public authorities for certain transgressions.